► Scientific reasoning is crucial in both scientific inquiry and everyday life. While the majority of researchers have studied "how people reason" by focusing on their…
(more)

▼ Scientific reasoning is crucial in both scientific inquiry and everyday life. While the majority of researchers have studied "how people reason" by focusing on their cognitive processes, factors related to the underpinnings of scientific reasoning are still under-researched. The present study aimed to develop a grounded theory that captures not only the cognitive processes during reasoning but also their underpinnings. In particular, the grounded theory and phenomenographic methodologies were integrated to explore how undergraduate students reason about competing theories and evidence on global climate change. Twenty-six undergraduate students were recruited through theoretical sampling. Constant comparative analysis of responses from interviews and written assessments revealed that participants were mostly drawn to the surface features when reasoning about evidence. While prior knowledge might not directly contribute to participants' performance on evidence evaluation, it affected their level of engagement when reading and evaluating competing arguments on climate issues. More importantly, even though all participants acknowledged the relative correctness of multiple perspectives, they predominantly favored arguments that supported their own beliefs with weak scientific reasoning about the opposing arguments. Additionally, factors such as personal interests, religious beliefs, and reading capacity were also found to have bearings on the way participants evaluated evidence and arguments. In all, this work contributes to the current endeavors in exploring the nature of scientific reasoning. Taking a holistic perspective, it provides an in-depth discussion of factors that may affect or relate to scientific reasoning processes. Furthermore, in comparison with traditional methods used in the literature, the methodological approach employed in this work brought an innovative insight into the investigation of scientific reasoning. Last but not least, this research may help initiate further discussion regarding how to bridge cognitive research with science education to promote student learning of complex scientific issues such as global climate change.

Liu, S. (2014). How people reason: a grounded theory of scientific reasoning about global climate change. (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Minnesota. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11299/167249

Liu S. How people reason: a grounded theory of scientific reasoning about global climate change. [Internet] [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Minnesota; 2014. [cited 2019 May 25].
Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/11299/167249.

Council of Science Editors:

Liu S. How people reason: a grounded theory of scientific reasoning about global climate change. [Doctoral Dissertation]. University of Minnesota; 2014. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/11299/167249

► Being epistemically responsible requires an appreciation for both the power and the limitations of human knowledge, forming and adjusting one’s beliefs in a way that…
(more)

▼ Being epistemically responsible requires an appreciation for both the power and the limitations of human knowledge, forming and adjusting one’s beliefs in a way that is responsive to the right criteria. Epistemic responsibility is needed among the populace as well as the elite for a functional democracy. It is also crucial for the understanding of science. However, without clear, shared norms of how best to form, adjust, and justify beliefs, we cannot hold each other epistemically accountable. In this dissertation, I explore how adolescents and adults conceive of the best practices for forming beliefs. Chapter 1 asks what criteria for belief people take as legitimate, and how that affects their scientific beliefs. Chapter 2 examines epistemologicalreasoning in adolescence, focusing on appreciation for objective epistemic strategies and epistemic limitations. Chapter 3 explores adolescents’ cognitive norms and capacity to engage in epistemically responsible thinking, conceived here as thinking that is actively open-minded. These questions are explored using a mixed method approach, utilizing both surveys and interviews in each chapter. Surveys allow data collection from large and diverse samples. Qualitative interviews allow us to observe reasoning and justification more directly, adding nuance and illustrating thought processes. The results reveal serious disagreement concerning what constitutes epistemic responsibility, especially with respect to what counts as a legitimate reason for belief (Chapter 1). However, there is room for optimism; the majority of adolescents demonstrated the crucial building blocks for a sophisticated epistemology (Chapter 2) and norms of actively open-minded thinking (Chapter 3). We need to leverage these existing good epistemic norms and elements of understanding, especially in the young. It is my hope that this dissertation will further this goal.

► College students rarely engage model-based epistemologicalreasoning about scientific data and evidence. The purpose of this study was to (1) investigate how scaffolding treatments influenced…
(more)

▼ College students rarely engage model-based epistemologicalreasoning about scientific data and evidence. The purpose of this study was to (1) investigate how scaffolding treatments influenced college students' epistemologicalreasoning about how data are used as evidence, (2) describe students' epistemologicalreasoning practice over the course of the study, (3) learn more about relationships among students' domain knowledge, epistemological beliefs about scientific knowledge, and epistemologicalreasoning, and (4) investigate how scaffolding for epistemologicalreasoning influences knowledge gain.
Participants in this study consisted of three-hundred fifteen undergraduate students; all were juniors and seniors and all students were enrolled in one of two introductory genetics laboratory courses. Study participants included non-majors (Experiment 1, N =143) and majors (Experiment 2, N = 172).
A partially mixed-methods sequential research design was used in this study; qualitative and quantitative phases were mixed during data analysis. A distributed scaffolding system was used in this study. All participants from each laboratory section were randomly assigned to one of three treatments; no scaffolds, domain-general scaffolds, or domain specific scaffolds. Study variables included domain knowledge, epistemological beliefs about the nature of scientific knowledge, and epistemologicalreasoning, scaffolding treatment was the manipulated variable.
Findings were: (1) Chi square analysis indicated no statistically significant differences in epistemologicalreasoning by scaffolding treatment; model-based reasoning was not observed in students' explanations; (2) Spearman rho indicated no change in epistemologicalreasoning over the course of the study, however, statistical significance was not reached, however, a repeated measures ANOVA with Greenhouse-Geisser correction indicated a statistically significant within subjects change in epistemologicalreasoning, implications are discussed; (3) statistically significant bivariate correlations were found and (4) ANCOVA indicated pretest domain knowledge was a statistically significant covariate for posttest domain knowledge and a statistically significant main effect for scaffolding treatment was reached by Experiment 1 participants but not by Experiment 2 participants. Implications for instructional design and future research are discussed.
Advisors/Committee Members: Goetz, Ernest T. (advisor), Loving, Cathleen C. (advisor), Hall, Robert J. (committee member), Wild, James R. (committee member).

Shimek, C. (2012). The Effectiveness of Scaffolding Treatment on College Students' Epistemological Reasoning about how Data are Used as Evidence. (Thesis). Texas A&M University. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-2012-05-10957

Note: this citation may be lacking information needed for this citation format:Not specified: Masters Thesis or Doctoral Dissertation

Chicago Manual of Style (16th Edition):

Shimek, Christina. “The Effectiveness of Scaffolding Treatment on College Students' Epistemological Reasoning about how Data are Used as Evidence.” 2012. Thesis, Texas A&M University. Accessed May 25, 2019.
http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-2012-05-10957.

Note: this citation may be lacking information needed for this citation format:Not specified: Masters Thesis or Doctoral Dissertation

MLA Handbook (7th Edition):

Shimek, Christina. “The Effectiveness of Scaffolding Treatment on College Students' Epistemological Reasoning about how Data are Used as Evidence.” 2012. Web. 25 May 2019.

Vancouver:

Shimek C. The Effectiveness of Scaffolding Treatment on College Students' Epistemological Reasoning about how Data are Used as Evidence. [Internet] [Thesis]. Texas A&M University; 2012. [cited 2019 May 25].
Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-2012-05-10957.

Note: this citation may be lacking information needed for this citation format:Not specified: Masters Thesis or Doctoral Dissertation

Council of Science Editors:

Shimek C. The Effectiveness of Scaffolding Treatment on College Students' Epistemological Reasoning about how Data are Used as Evidence. [Thesis]. Texas A&M University; 2012. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-2012-05-10957

Note: this citation may be lacking information needed for this citation format:Not specified: Masters Thesis or Doctoral Dissertation

► This thesis examines in four parts a collection of philosophical arguments dealing with war. The conclusions drawn are that war is a definable and applicable…
(more)

▼ This thesis examines in four parts a collection of philosophical arguments dealing with war. The conclusions drawn are that war is a definable and applicable concept, that above the level of biological reactions war is the result of beliefs, that an objective distinction exists between aggressive and defensive actions, and that war is only justifiable in the protection of core rights. The first part analyses competing definitions of war. It is argued that the concept of war is philosophically appropriate and captures the conceptual common denominator between particular wars. The essence of war is defined as “a condition of open-ended violence”. Part Two explores the causal relationships between metaphysical and epistemological beliefs and war. It is held that war cannot be explained away as an unalterable fact of the universe, hence deterministic explanations fail in favour of the conclusion that wars are the product of ideas and ideas are volitionally obtained. The third part continues an exploration of determinist accounts of war and examines how various theories of human nature attempt to explain why war occurs. For methodological purposes human nature is trisected into biological, cultural, and rational aspects. Theories that attempt to interpret war using only a single aspect are inadequate, for each aspect must logically presuppose the existence and hence the influence of the others. It is concluded that human wars are the product of ideas, but ideas are distinguishable between tacit and explicit forms. Tacit forms of knowledge evolve through social interaction and sometimes have unintended consequences; war on the cultural level can be the product of human action but not of human design (Ferguson), hence attempts to abolish war by reason alone are bound to fail. Part Four assesses the application of ethical and political reasoning to war. It is argued firstly that morality, in the form of universalisable core rights and socially generated general rules of conduct, must not be removed from the sphere of war. Secondly it is concluded that the ideal just government exists to protect rights, from which it will follow that defensive wars and wars of intervention to protect rights are morally supportable.